CNF Clinic Award: Most Suspicious Performance of 2013

[roundabout]

I am pretty sure Horner wins the suspicious contest based on no team willing to sign potentially the best GT rider out there for a mere 750k a year.

 

[Fatclimber]

I voted for Horner because, well, there's insulting our intelligence, and then there's hitting our intelligence with a hatchet, dragging it out into the woods, ****ing on it and then setting it on fire. He's how old? He did what? Also because of his nickname. "papy"? God I hate that nickname. I don't ever want to hear about anyone named Papy in a bike race, not even a masters crit.

Lol! I would like to nominate this for quote of the day.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I am pretty sure Horner wins the suspicious contest based on no team willing to sign potentially the best GT rider out there for a mere 750k a year.

750k (€? $?) is still a lot to drop on a guy at this point in the transfer window. If he'd been asking for that right from the get-go he might've got a ride, but he wanted to be paid like the GT winner that he is at first. And considering his age and that he would be a short-term stop-gap at most, teams were baulking at offering that kind of money to him, and were looking at more long-term goals. It's telling that other strong riders at advanced ages, like Samuel Sánchez, also don't have contracts, while younger riders available have been able to find teams willing to accommodate them at the cut prices, by hook or by crook (Luísle Sánchez at Caja Rural, Igor Antón at Movistar), probably as a younger rider can still have something to offer whereas the older riders would be expected to be on the comedown.

Most teams are looking at long term goals, focusing on Horner for a year will only get in the way of that. Nobody's going to be willing to offer him a multi-year deal. What's more, even in issuing his biopassport to try to get somebody to take a chance on him, since it was clear nobody believed in him, he's not had any luck. This suggests that while there is nothing he can be nailed on, teams still feel that it's risky to pick him up. Because he's only a short term solution at best, and comes with the prospect of bad press (and because pretty much nobody believes in him, either in the media or among the fans, teams may be wary that he may be targeted to be got rid of in order to buy back credibility for anti-doping), why would a team take that risk when they already have either established GT riders on the team, have purchased new team leaders at least partially for that aspect of the team (Urán at OPQS, Costa at Lampre) or simply aren't focusing on that aspect of racing (eg Cannondale basing themselves around Sagan)?

 

[gooner]

I don't care why you think Horner is suspicious. That's not the discussion we are having. What we have been talking about is your claim that Horner broke doper records. You have been unwilling to back up that claim which suggets that you know it was false.

To say this is the wrong thread is a massive cop out. You said, in this thread that Horner broke doper records. So it is up to you to show in this thread which doper records Horner actually broke.

Rexords are simply numbers. If Horner actually did break those records it would take you all of about 10 seconds to copy and paste the numbers and a link here and thus prove me wrong and win the discussion.

The fact that you refuse to offer the data and instead come up with 100 different excuses for why you won't post it, is very telling.

No, you started the discussion of the records, after you failed to put words into my mouth that i didn´t say... As usual all went in circles in a sensless discussion.
I guess no later than 24 hrs most of this blabla posts between us are deleted (rightfully). So was it worth it to cope with me?

BTW, I still say Horner broke past dopers records. But i am not going into splitting hair contests...
Yeah, linking takes 10 secs. But to get to the exact page where the links are takes a ton of time. I don´t have that, in a wrong thread, in a back-and-forth-leading-to-nothing-discussion.

There was the Pena Caberga performance and the Gazzetta article about him breaking VAM records.

 

[The Hitch]

There was the Pena Caberga performance and the Gazzetta article about him breaking VAM records.

Finally, someone steps in to do Foxxy's job.

Yes I was waiting for Pena Cabarga. That was the 1 climb Horner got the record on.

Problem is Pena Cabarga was only used twice before once in 2010 once in 2011. Both fall inside the period Foxxy described as clean, and the 2 riders who won - Rodriguez and Froome, he considers clean and have never tested positive.

So Horner did not beat any doper record there (unless Foxxy wants to argue Purito doped).

On all other climbs Horner was more than a minute outside the record including Angliru, http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/new-angliru-top-50-champions-set-great.html Collada de Galina http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/horrendous-weather-keeps-safe-2012.html
and Hazallanas http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/good-old-horner-destroys-everybody-up.html

No broken doper records at all.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

There was the Pena Caberga performance and the Gazzetta article about him breaking VAM records.

I know. But i didn´t want to get into his usual hair splitting contests. If i had talked about the Angrilu he would have said there was one former doper faster (and thus technically not "qualifiying" as record breaker).
If i started about the Pena Cabarga record, he´d have said something like it doesn´t count b/c it wasn´t ridden in the "true" dark age.
If i started about the high w/kg of 42-year-old-Horner he´d have tried to wash it away with tailwind or something... and so on.
Discussing hairs, yet everybody else knows what i mean with "breaking doping records" when looking at the whole Vuelta performance in perspective.

 

[The Hitch]

I know. But i didn´t want to get into his usual hair splitting contests. If i had talked about the Angrilu he would have said there was one former doper faster (and thus technically not "qualifiying" as record breaker).
If i started about the Pena Cabarga record, he´d have said something like it doesn´t count b/c it wasn´t ridden in the "true" dark age.
If i started about the high w/kg of 42-year-old-Horner he´d have tried to wash it away with tailwind or something... and so on.
Discussing hairs, yet everybody else knows what i mean with "breaking doping records" when looking at the whole Vuelta performance in perspective.

Or I would just point out that none of those broke "doping world records" ergo your original comment that Horner had broken doper records was wrong. Which was the whole discussion to begin with and the one you spend 4 hours and about 20 posts trying in 50 different ways to weasel your way out of.

So was what you said correct

A 42 year old one riding injured on one leg breaking doping world records, or a rider in his peak age?
As I said, it´s a no brainer...

The answer is no. It was false.

 

[gooner]

Finally, someone steps in to do Foxxy's job.

Yes I was waiting for Pena Cabarga. That was the 1 climb Horner got the record on.

Problem is Pena Cabarga was only used twice before once in 2010 once in 2011. Both fall inside the period Foxxy described as clean, and the 2 riders who won - Rodriguez and Froome, he considers clean and have never tested positive.

So Horner did not beat any doper record there (unless Foxxy wants to argue Purito doped).

On all other climbs Horner was more than a minute outside the record including Angliru, http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/new-angliru-top-50-champions-set-great.html Collada de Galina http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/horrendous-weather-keeps-safe-2012.html
and Hazallanas http://climbing-records.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/good-old-horner-destroys-everybody-up.html

No broken doper records at all.

I don't disagree with the points you make but the VAM was used in comparison to other performances(albeit on longer climbs).

Nevertheless it makes interesting reading in comparison especially to Contador on Verbier.

According to Gazzetta Horner's estimated VAM of 2034 apparently beats those set by Contador (1926) and Rodriguez (1903) on the Cuitu Negru climb on stage 14 of last year's Vuelta. Roberto Heras set a figure of 1900 in 2002. A reported tailwind helped the riders on the climb of Peña Cabarga and could be a factor in the high numbers.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-dello-sport-scrutinizes-horners-power-data-at-the-vuelta

A Bend, Oregon native, Horner blasted up the 5.9-kilometer Peña Cabarga climb in record time on Thursday. His time on the ascent, which went from 20 to 565 meters above sea level, ranged from 16:40 to 16:44, depending on who you ask. The VAM, or meters climbing per hour, calculates to somewhere between 1,961 to 1,972 — again, according to different sources.

La Gazzetta dello Sport ran with the headline, “Esagerato! Un Horner mai visto.” That translates to, “Exaggerated! A Horner like never before.” The paper reported that his VAM broke all records at 2,034. According to the Italian daily, he would have averaged 437 watts or around 6.83 watts/kg.

In comparison, Alberto Contador rode up the 8.5km Verbier climb at the 2009 Tour de France with a VAM of 1,864. Chris Froome (Sky) is said to have recorded a 1,722 VAM on Mont Ventoux at the Tour this year.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/09/news/horner-pushes-the-power-numbers-at-the-vuelta_302720

 

[The Hitch]

I don't disagree with the points you make but the VAM was used in comparison to other performances(albeit on longer climbs).

Nevertheless it makes interesting reading in comparison especially to Contador on Verbier.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-dello-sport-scrutinizes-horners-power-data-at-the-vuelta



http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/09/news/horner-pushes-the-power-numbers-at-the-vuelta_302720

I know all about that, and have called Horner out of course before and continue to do so.

But that doesn't mean just because Horner is a doper and rode high vam that we can let fanatics hijack the discussion and make up stuff Horner didn't even do and use that against him.

It devalues the argument totally. We need to stick to the facts and when someone starts taking liberties with them and making up stuff that Horner didn't do and using that against him, we have to tell them - "no, stick to the facts, don't make your own **** up."

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Or I would just point out that none of those broke "doping world records" ergo your original comment that Horner had broken doper records was wrong. Which was the whole discussion to begin with and the one you spend 4 hours and about 20 posts trying in 50 different ways to weasel your way out of.

So was what you said correct

The answer is no. It was false.

What was wrong? That Horner beat doping records? I guess you still try to not see the meaning of my words, especially the "splitting hairs" issue.
Whatever, you don´t get the point of other posters (as i linked before), so why should you get mine?
I havn´t "weaseled" myself out, i just jumped on your game for fun. I knew upfront it will lead to nothing. As usual.

 

[Pippo_San]

Cancellara. Just because the use of the hidden engine in his bike still screams vengeance.

And because he's annoying as ****.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I know all about that, and have called Horner out of course before and continue to do so.

But that doesn't mean just because Horner is a doper and rode high vam that we can let fanatics hijack the discussion and make up stuff Horner didn't even do and use that against him.

It devalues the argument totally. We need to stick to the facts and when someone starts taking liberties with them and making up stuff that Horner didn't do and using that against him, we have to tell them - "no, stick to the facts, don't make your own **** up."

You want to attack me, after you engaged me in your silly hair splitting fights?

Yeah do it. But then again, better don´t hit out when you sit in a glass house. The above written is true for many of your Sky/Wiggings/Froome posts (especially those in wrong threads). But you know what? I tell you upfront: I am unwilling to go trou your 10.000 posts where you try to lead people to wrong assumptions, made up "facts", just to please your hate of Sky...

 

[Escarabajo]

I don't disagree with the points you make but the VAM was used in comparison to other performances(albeit on longer climbs).

Nevertheless it makes interesting reading in comparison especially to Contador on Verbier.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-dello-sport-scrutinizes-horners-power-data-at-the-vuelta



http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/09/news/horner-pushes-the-power-numbers-at-the-vuelta_302720

I voted Horner because of other reasons. Especially his age. But Peña Cabarga is a 5.9 km climb. Short indeed. Kind of not fair trying to compare with longer climbs.

 

[red_flanders]

Foxy, you've been pwned. Your arguments have been made to look foolish. Not sure why you can't admit you were totally wrong, in both substance and style.

What are you whining about anyway? Your nemesis Horner is winning the poll. I guess unfortunately that will devalue the persecution complex of the Sky fans who like to act like people do nothing but attack Sky and ignore all the other dopers.

Seems demonstrably not to be the case. I look forward to referring to this poll when the whining starts again.

 

[Big Doopie]

Ok. Then why did you mention Horner (and Nibali)



I think you are confusing even yourself with this logic. Take a step back and try again

Um... Hello, hitch? My choices were not available on the poll so I went with Horner. Can't exactly vote for someone not on the poll, can I?

Um... Nor did I mention nibali in my post.

You are getting even more erratic as your dementia kicks in.

It is abundantly clear who is "confused" here.

 

[Wallace]

jeezus, what has happened to the forum i'm confident that sock puppets are likely not involved... foxyrown has seemingly morphed into what i'd expect to be skeptic and the hitch increasingly sounds like the dr mass demanding proofs ( who's apparently exited the board)

As the Jan 1st deadline approaches, Hitch is making sure he wraps up the "Most Pedantic Poster" poll.

 

[Wallace]

I don't care why you think Horner is suspicious. That's not the discussion we are having. What we have been talking about is your claim that Horner broke doper records. You have been unwilling to back up that claim which suggets that you know it was false.

You realize of course that this is just an expression, right? There are no "doper records" because doping is--what's the right word, illegal? You can't keep records about something people do their best to keep secret. And besides, since different physiologies react differently to different doping products, it's impossible to say who benefited the most from any given product. And what is a "doper record"? Who took the most? Those records were probably set by the poor cyclists in the 80s who died from EPO-thickened blood. This has to be the stupidest argument in CN forum history.

 

[SundayRider]

You realize of course that this is just an expression, right? There are no "doper records" because doping is--what's the right word, illegal? You can't keep records about something people do their best to keep secret. And besides, since different physiologies react differently to different doping products, it's impossible to say who benefited the most from any given product. And what is a "doper record"? Who took the most? Those records were probably set by the poor cyclists in the 80s who died from EPO-thickened blood. This has to be the stupidest argument in CN forum history.

EPO use wasn'tt really widespread until 90s.

 

[spalco]

see what we have here is a new paradigm...

Froome, using a new aerodynamic technique, is able to accelerate harder than anybody else by staying in the saddle on the climbs and

Horner, using a prolonged gravity force, is able to drop everybody while staying upright for the entire climb.

Its new science against the rest of the amateurs.

That's not necessarily a contradiction. Different techniques can work for different people with different body types.

Plus, even if you don't agree with that, another logical explanation could be that just one of the two Chris's dopes.

 

[spalco]

Cancellara. Just because the use of the hidden engine in his bike still screams vengeance.

And because he's annoying as ****.

Please tell me you're joking. I like Cancellara a lot, and yet I fully understand why people are suspicious of him to say the least. But this "bike doping" story was seriously the dumbest hoax of the decade in cycling and I refuse to believe anyone still takes that seriously.

 

[Escarabajo]

Please tell me you're joking. I like Cancellara a lot, and yet I fully understand why people are suspicious of him to say the least. But this "bike doping" story was seriously the dumbest hoax of the decade in cycling and I refuse to believe anyone still takes that seriously.

A lot of people took it very seriously. More than you think.

 

[The Hitch]

You realize of course that this is just an expression, right? There are no "doper records" because doping is--what's the right word, illegal? You can't keep records about something people do their best to keep secret. And besides, since different physiologies react differently to different doping products, it's impossible to say who benefited the most from any given product. And what is a "doper record"? Who took the most? Those records were probably set by the poor cyclists in the 80s who died from EPO-thickened blood. This has to be the stupidest argument in CN forum history.

I agree. For me it's the same.

However if a poster has specifically identified a period as having been clean, (September 2010-September 2013) and Horner's only "world record" occured on a hill that had only been climbed twice, both within this period, and the two previous winners he considers clean, then that record clearly falls outside of the definition for "doping world record". For him Pena cabarga would have been a clean world record.

You contest that we cannot know how much people doped or how at effected them so the phrase is illegitimate. If a poster however claims to know exactly the amount the previous winners and record holders were doping-0, then the phrase does have meaning.

 

[red_flanders]

That's not necessarily a contradiction. Different techniques can work for different people with different body types.

Plus, even if you don't agree with that, another logical explanation could be that just one of the two Chris's dopes.

Come on, no way is Horner clean.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As the Jan 1st deadline approaches, Hitch is making sure he wraps up the "Most Pedantic Poster" poll.

I thought he got that award already.
Anyway, you hit the nail.

You realize of course that this is just an expression, right? There are no "doper records"...

Excactly that´s what i mean. An expression. I tried to get it into his head with the description "hair splitting".
I think he got it a while ago, but pretends not to, so he has a reason to go on with his silly games.
TBH, I used the words "doping world records" within the context of my original post. The same way "The Hitch" uses it in his various attacks vs some Sky riders. So it´s not my "copyright", i just liked the phrase and used it myself...

However if a poster has specifically identified a period as having been clean, (September 2010-September 2013) and Horner's only "world record" occured on a hill that had only been climbed twice, both within this period, and the two previous winners he considers clean...

Liar. I never said this... Or are you just confused and "Big Doopie" is on something here (about the "dementia thing")? At least it would explain a lot.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Plus, even if you don't agree with that, another logical explanation could be that just one of the two Chris's dopes.

True. It´s possible only the old Chris dopes.



sarcasm